Paul Rigby Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And especially am not surprised to see this story crisped up in the Daily Bellylaugh. Right down their proverbial passage, methinks -- they get more inspired leaks from the military inteligence community than Priivate Eye (if the ever so wicked rumours are true?) More than Private Eye? What a clash of the titans! PS But surely both get more from SIS than MI? Just look at Paul Foot's work....and all of that space devoted to Christopher Gordievsky?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) I'm no fan of Shayler, but this is very good:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...11133&hl=en The tendentiousness and sheer intellectual dishonesty of this BBC programme should have brought an end to the organisation in its current anti-democratic form. Let's hope Shayler's doc gets the ball rolling. Why's that, Paul? Sid, By way of reply - and a plug for a fellow "bluenose" - try this link for very important reasons to view Shayler with extreme scepticism: http://www.borderland.co.uk/notes_from_the...derland_002.htm But the fact remains that the above-linked doc is still very well done. Paul Thanks Paul. I find this very interesting. What's a 'bluenose'? On the webpage you cited as a reference, additional links are provided for further information. Having just read the homepage of http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/, my first impressions are that the authors - not Shayler and Machin - are probable disinformationalists (or perhaps honestly misguided souls). Likewise http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/. I hope I'm not talking about friends of yours I do agree with you, having now viewed the video, that the 9-11 Conspiracy Files demolition is superb. Well done to Shayler and the Bristol 9-11 Truth people! Edited July 1, 2007 by Sid Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Sid, in descending order of importance: What's a 'bluenose'? An Evertonian. On the webpage you cited as a reference, additional links are provided for further information.Having just read the homepage of http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/, my first impressions are that the authors - not Shayler and Machin - are probable disinformationalists (or perhaps honestly misguided souls). Likewise http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/. I hope I'm not talking about friends of yours Nope, never met the coves in my life, and I'm inclined to agree: But O'Hara on Shayler is very good. I do agree with you, having now viewed the video, that the 9-11 Conspiracy Files demolition is superb. Well done to Shayler and the Bristol 9-11 Truth people! Thirded - and this is where I came in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Sid, in descending order of importance:What's a 'bluenose'? An Evertonian. On the webpage you cited as a reference, additional links are provided for further information.Having just read the homepage of http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/, my first impressions are that the authors - not Shayler and Machin - are probable disinformationalists (or perhaps honestly misguided souls). Likewise http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/. I hope I'm not talking about friends of yours Nope, never met the coves in my life, and I'm inclined to agree: But O'Hara on Shayler is very good. I do agree with you, having now viewed the video, that the 9-11 Conspiracy Files demolition is superb. Well done to Shayler and the Bristol 9-11 Truth people! Thirded - and this is where I came in... I also thought O'Hara raised some interesting points. I'd like to see more detail... but I'm disinclined to fork out ten quid to buy the DVD and find out whether it exists. Call me stingy , but there it is. Unfortunately, the link to Steve Booth's summary cited by O'Hara doesn't work. Everton? I presume you mean the suburb of Liverpool - the city that hosts England's most successful soccer team? Just teasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) "Len, OK with the no SAMs (I did read it though)," Actually the more I think about it the more I think it’s possible the Secret Service might have had some Stingers stashed away for when the president or other dignitaries were in town. But due to the short time between the two crashes (26 minutes) and even shorter time between 175’s turn towards NY (8:58) and crash (9:03) It seems highly unlikely that an agent could have responded in time let alone gotten authorization for a shoot down. In fact they would have had less than 5 minutes because it wasn’t until about a minute before the crash that flight controllers realized the 2nd plane was heading for the WTC as well*. “but if there was what's the what's the difference between a SAM and scrambling a fighter and shooting it down?” Remember that an intercept is not the same as a shoot down. ‘Intercept’ rather seems to means to get close enough to the plane to visually inspect and communicate with. There is confusion about when a shoot down order was given but it was well after the 2nd crash. “If the plane was observed soon enough, the missile could take it out well away from downtown Manhattan, and a well timed strike could probably ensure it went into the East River, No?.” Hudson River actually, I think Evan is more qualified to answer that question but as a layman I doubt it. The river is about a mile or two wide at that point and the plane was traveling at over 500 mph and if I’m not mistaken the missile target the engines thus 2 hits would have been required which still would have left a relatively intact plane in the air * http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...te_911_timeline see "9:03" Edited July 1, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Ron, do you have details of the photographer who confirms the timings? White House photographer David Bohrer witnessed the SS take Cheney from his office right after 9:00 a.m. http://suburbanguerrilla.blogspot.com/2003...order-only.html I still believe Mineta was mistaken about his times; all other sources (stand fast the photographer) disagree with his timings. It's certainly possible that Mineta could be confused about his times. I believe that his testimony is either the Mineta Stone of 9/11, or else Mineta was stoned. However, if Mineta was mistaken, the eyewitness account of when Cheney left his office still raises the question of where Cheney went for around half an hour before showing up (according to the official timeline) at the bunker. This half hour is during the same period of time that Rumsfeld was hiding in his Pentagon office (declining an invitation from Victoria Clarke and other logically thinking staff to join them down the hall at the National Military Command Center), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Myers was hiding in Senator Cleland's office (not to be disturbed because they were discussing his promotion to Chairman), and the usual officer in charge at the NMCC was at points unknown, having arranged the day before to be relieved at 8:30 a.m. on 9/11 by a greenhorn stand-in). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Everton? I presume you mean the suburb of Liverpool - the city that hosts England's most successful soccer team? Langley on the Mersey. Pure darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) Ron, do you have details of the photographer who confirms the timings? White House photographer David Bohrer witnessed the SS take Cheney from his office right after 9:00 a.m. http://suburbanguerrilla.blogspot.com/2003...order-only.html The page doesn’t provide a direct quote of the photographer but merely quotes from the 9/11 timeline. “Meanwhile, Secret Service agents burst into Vice President Cheney’s White House office. They carried him under his arms—nearly lifting him off the ground—and propelled him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. Accounts of when this happened vary greatly… The one eyewitness account, by White House photographer David Bohrer, said it happened just after 9:00. [ABC, 9/14/02 (]” The provided link on the timeline http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/”/timel...ews091402.html” doesn’t work and there is no record of it in Google cache or the Internet Archive even when the quotation marks and extra back slash are removed It seems to be referencing this page which makes no mention of Cheney or any photographers or anybody named Bohrer http://www.billstclair.com/911timeline/200...news091402.html Note the similarity of the urls which both end with the string timeline/2002/abcnews091402.html precisely the part between the quotation marks in the timeline link and that the dates match. Perhaps they meant to reference this page http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon...interviews.html It includes this account by Bohrer of Cheney’s evacuation from ABC News September 11, 2002 “The Secret Service had come in, to his office. I think it was two or three agents, which is very unusual.” Bohrer however made no indication as to when this happened but it is implied that this happened after Bush was taken “to the Sarasota airport”. Sorry Ron, no dice. However, if Mineta was mistaken, the eyewitness account of when Cheney left his office still raises the question of where Cheney went for around half an hour before showing up (according to the official timeline) at the bunker. Why couldn't he have been in his office and taken directly from there to the PEOC? Edited July 1, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 The page doesn’t provide a direct quote of the photographer but merely quotes from the 9/11 timeline. “… The one eyewitness account, by White House photographer David Bohrer, said it happened just after 9:00. [ABC, 9/14/02 (]” It looks to me like it's quoting ABC News. ABC News Why couldn't he have been in his office and taken directly from there to the PEOC? He could have been, but that raises the question of why the SS let him sit in his office, doing whatever he was doing, for half an hour with America under attack. Just like they let Bush sit in a pet goat story session in Sarasota instead of doing their job, to protect a schoolhouse full of teachers and schoolchildren even if they thought George W. Bush's sorry butt wasn't worth protecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I can't think of a single aspect of the official 9-11 story that bears close scrutiny. Rich pickings for nimble minds like Ron, who has a knack of spotting anomalies and writing about them with wit and persistence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Thorne Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Though I still don't have a minute to dig into the Cheney issue as much as I'd like to, as the subject warrants a lot of discussion, I thought in the same topic these advance blurbs for Peter's book were quite worthwhile. ............. "Scott's brilliantly perceptive account of the underpinnings of American governmental authority should be made required reading. The book vividly depicts the political forces that have pushed this country toward an abyss, threatening constitutional democracy at home and world peace abroad. Its central message can be understood as an urgent wake-up call to everyone concerned with the future of America."--Richard Falk, author of The Great Terror War "Peter Dale Scott is one of that tiny and select company of the most brilliantly creative and provocative political-historical writers of the last half century. The Road to 9/11 further secures his distinction as truth-teller and prophet. He shows us here with painful yet hopeful clarity the central issue of our time--America's coming to terms with its behavior in the modern world. As in his past work, Scott's gift is not only recognition and wisdom, but also redemption and rescue we simply cannot do without."--Roger Morris, former NSC staffer "The Road to 9/11 is vintage Peter Dale Scott. Scott does not undertake conventional political analysis; instead, he engages in a kind of poetics, crafting the dark poetry of the deep state, of parapolitics, and of shadow government. As with his earlier work Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Scott has no theory of responsibility and does not name the guilty. Rather, he maps out an alien terrain, surveying the topography of a political shadow land, in which covert political deviancy emerges as the norm. After reading Scott, we can no longer continue with our consensus-driven belief that our so-called 'liberal' order renders impossible the triumph of the politically irrational."--Eric Wilson, Senior Lecturer of Public International Law, Monash University, and co-editor of Government of the Shadows "Peter Dale Scott exposes a shadow world of oil, terrorism, drug trade and arms deals, of covert financing and parallel security structures-from the Cold War to today. He shows how such parallel forces of the United States have been able to dominate the agenda of the George W. Bush Administration, and that statements and actions made by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld before, during and after September 11, 2001, present evidence for an American 'deep state' and for the so-called 'Continuity of Government' in parallel to the regular 'public state' ruled by law. Scott's brilliant work not only reveals the overwhelming importance of these parallel forces but also presents elements of a strategy for restraining their influence to win back the 'public state', the American democracy."--Ola Tunander, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo "A powerful study of the historic origins of the terrorist strikes of September 11, this book offers an indispensable guide to the gluttonous cast of characters who, since Watergate and the fall of Nixon, fashioned an ever more reckless American empire. By exposing the corrupt U.S. 'deep state'-transfer of public authority to America's wealthy and to the nation's unaccountable secret intelligence agencies-Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11 illuminates the path toward a more democratic and inclusive republic."--David MacGregor, King's University College at the University of Western Ontario "The Road to 9/11 provides an illuminating and disturbing history of the American government since World War II. Scott's account suggests that the 9/11 attacks were a culmination of long-term trends that threaten the very existence of American democracy, and also that there has been a massive cover-up of 9/11 itself. This book, which combines extensive research, perceptive analysis, and a fascinating narrative, will surely be considered Scott's magnum opus."--David Ray Griffin, author of Debunking 9/11 Debunking "'The America we knew and loved. Can it be saved?' That question opens this book, and getting to the answer called for the honed intellect of a scholar and the sensitivity of a poet. Peter Dale Scott has both, in spades, and here gives us much, much more than a book about 9/11. In a time of fear, he speaks for sanity and freedom."--Anthony Summers, author of The Arrogance of Power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 The page doesn’t provide a direct quote of the photographer but merely quotes from the 9/11 timeline. “… The one eyewitness account, by White House photographer David Bohrer, said it happened just after 9:00. [ABC, 9/14/02 (]” It looks to me like it's quoting ABC News. ABC News You’re right Ron that does seem to be the article they were referring to, excellent research on your part. However I’m pretty sure the dead link (almost all the Timeline’s links aren’t working now) originally pointed to the “billstclair” page unless you want to chalk the correlation of the date and url to coincidence. Both of the pages I linked were reproductions of ABC News pages. The Timeline frequently linked to third party copies of pages that had gone offline. It’s unclear if Bohrer attested to when the VP was evacuated or simply what the Secret Service agent’s said though I admit it sounds like the former. But that’s no biggie even IF Cheney was in the PEOC when the Pentagon was hit, Minetta correctly recalled what happened and the plane being referred to was flight 77 he understood that they were discussing a shoot down order not a “stand down” order and there’s no evidence to the contrary. SID WROTE: “I can't think of a single aspect of the official 9-11 story that bears close scrutiny.” Funny I was thinking the same thing about “inside job” theories which so far have the public support of - - Roughly zero qualified experts* and - Only person, who is a bold faced xxxx, who was in the Twin Towers between the times of the impacts and collapses - Only one person who was at the Pentagon - Only 3 or 4 people (some of questionable credibility) who were at or near GZ that day. - Several theologians and philosophy professors plus experts in dental filling, deep sea oil platforms, water testing and atomic energy. “Truthers” still squawk about long debunked stuff like the “no Arab names” crap. * Actually there are a handful of qualified pilots who question the ability of Hanjour and/or a 757 to have flown in the way they did but they are contradicted by several pilots and aeronautical engineers. I don’t know of any other aspect of the “truthers” theories that have the public support of qualified people in the appropriate fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I do agree with you, having now viewed the video, that the 9-11 Conspiracy Files demolition is superb. Well done to Shayler and the Bristol 9-11 Truth people! Thirded - and this is where I came in... "Thirded"? Are you counting yourself twice Paul? Yawn I watched the first 30 minutes or so. Its the same crap as other “Truther” “documentaries” misconceptions, distortions, misinformation (no Arab names on the manifests) documents selectively quoted out of context, intellectual dishonesty etc etc. If any of its “champions” want to highlight any specific points it made, along with an indication of where they appeared in the video I’ll reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 even IF Cheney was in the PEOC when the Pentagon was hit, Minetta correctly recalled what happened and the plane being referred to was flight 77 he understood that they were discussing a shoot down order not a “stand down” order and there’s no evidence to the contrary. If Mineta is correct on the time, then they had to be talking about one of three things: 1. a shoot down order 2. a stand down order 3. an order to proceed to target Since there was no shoot down authorization at that time, nor any even discussed, and in any case there were no interceptors in the area at that time to either shoot or stand down, why would the "young man" keep asking if the order still stood? We are left with the most likely explanation: the "young man" wanted to be certain that Cheney intended the plane to proceed to its target. Which also explains why no one in the room let the Pentagon know that there was a plane headed its way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 If Mineta is correct on the time, then they had to be talking about one of three things: 1. a shoot down order 2. a stand down order 3. an order to proceed to target Big If. Mineta’s testimony is a bit contradictory he said for example “I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.” http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm Secret Service agents Nelson Garabito,and Terry van Steenburgen testified to the Commission that they didn’t evacuate Cheney till after 9:33 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf (pg. 39) and http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm (note 208) Since there was no shoot down authorization at that time, nor any even discussed, How do you know? and in any case there were no interceptors in the area at that time to either shoot or stand down, why would the "young man" keep asking if the order still stood? He and the person he ferrying messages from might not have been aware that the interceptors weren’t close enough We are left with the most likely explanation: the "young man" wanted to be certain that Cheney intended the plane to proceed to its target. It seems unlikely they would include such low level people in such a plot there would have been no reason to do so Which also explains why no one in the room let the Pentagon know that there was a plane headed its way. How would they have known what the plane’s intended target was? Neither the Amazing Karnak nor the Amazing Kreskin were in the room. In any case at 500+ mph it would have taken the plane 1 – 6 minutes to fly 10 – 50 miles not enough time to evacuate a building as large as the Pentagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now